[147258] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] RSA equivalent key length/strength
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Pelletier)
Sun Sep 22 13:37:55 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:07:02 -0700
From: Patrick Pelletier <code@funwithsoftware.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130914183837.GA1246@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>,
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>,
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 9/14/13 11:38 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> Tin foil or not: maybe its time for 3072 RSA/DH and 384/512 ECC?
I'm inclined to agree with you, but you might be interested/horrified in
the "1024 bits is enough for anyone" debate currently unfolding on the
TLS list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10009.html
and there was a similar discussion on the OpenSSL list recently, with
GnuTLS getting "blamed" for using the ECRYPT recommendations rather than
1024:
http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-users@openssl.org/msg71899.html
--Patrick
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
